The false sense of importance behind the IRB rankings

It’s become increasingly common to attach a ridiculous amount of importance to the IRB rankings. With some using them falsely to back up points, or arguing they should dictate the goals of the management.

Recently BC Rugby News went on a rant in a huge overreaction to the heavy defeat to Argentina Jaguars in the ARC, where the management were the target of heavy criticism and essentially claimed they need to be sacked to stop Canada becoming a '3rd Tier nation' (which an utterly absurd statement and actually disrespectful to the huge progress that Crowley achieved with the side).

Now leaving aside the bizarrely deluded paragraph about BC Premier and 3rd division rugby in 'Ubakistan' (sic), the rant paints a doom and gloom picture of Canadian rugby and references 'we sit an all time low in the IRB rankings', as if to claim the national team are as bad as they've ever been and stuck in the doldrums.

An idea of course that is complete rubbish. Canada are palpably better than they were when Crowley took over in 2008 and the side was losing 41-0 to Scotland and 55-0 to Ireland, even an idiot ought to be able to work that out.

Yet in 2008 Canadians were technically ranked as high as 14th, whilst the year previous in 2007 they reached 12th (with the 41-6 loss to Italy fresh in the memory). So now Canada are ranked 17th, does it suggest they are at an all time low? Of course not, as the rankings don't work as a comparison from years back as Tier 2 nations as a whole have improved.

Then there is the question as to whether the rankings are really of high validity and a real mark of where you stand as a nation, the answer again is of course not, and particularly not in regards for Tier 2 nations.

There are circumstances behind all games. For instance Japan reached 10th, and a large part of how they got that high was through large points gains from wins over Wales and Samoa both of whom were fielding sides that resembled more like their 'A' teams. The ranking was bogus.

And that's the problem with ranking systems, they can't account for sides with weak teams during Lions tours, Argentina's weakened June teams, or a side with an injury crisis amongst other things.

Teams tend to go up and down regularly, so they are more a very rough guide of form as opposed to anything to really take seriously.

Talking of which, there was another bizarre piece regarding the IRB ranking from Rugby Today's Pat Clifton who wasn't happy with USAR CEO Nigel Melville's release deal for the upcoming All Blacks game.

''I also think things like rankings matter, especially to those mainstream media members and average American sports fans we’re desperate to infect with the rugby bug" was what Clifton told the Argentina 2023 site.

Just to make clear, the rankings in actual fact don't matter one bit. There is no advantage for the USA in being ranked 15th or 16th instead of 17th.

The idea that the Eagles should prioritise beating Romania in a such a low profile game, played half the world away in a small 5k stadium in order to possibly be 17th instead of 18th, ahead of a game that is on such a major platform is complete lunacy.